Display options
Cite
Mohan S, Moineddin R, Chavhan GB. Pediatric whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: Intra-individual comparison of technical quality, artifacts, and fixed structure visibility at 1.5 and 3 T. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015;25(4):353-8doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.169448.
Mohan, S., Moineddin, R., & Chavhan, G. B. (2015). Pediatric whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: Intra-individual comparison of technical quality, artifacts, and fixed structure visibility at 1.5 and 3 T. The Indian journal of radiology & imaging, 25(4), 353-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.169448
Mohan, Shyam, et al. "Pediatric whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: Intra-individual comparison of technical quality, artifacts, and fixed structure visibility at 1.5 and 3 T." The Indian journal of radiology & imaging vol. 25,4 (2015): 353-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.169448
Mohan S, Moineddin R, Chavhan GB. Pediatric whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: Intra-individual comparison of technical quality, artifacts, and fixed structure visibility at 1.5 and 3 T. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015 Oct-Dec;25(4):353-8. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.169448. PMID: 26752815; PMCID: PMC4693382.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2015 Oct-Dec;25(4):353-8. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.169448.

Pediatric whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: Intra-individual comparison of technical quality, artifacts, and fixed structure visibility at 1.5 and 3 T.

The Indian journal of radiology & imaging

Shyam Mohan, Rahim Moineddin, Govind B Chavhan

Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children and Medical Imaging Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PMID: 26752815 PMCID: PMC4693382 DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.169448

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) performed at 1.5 and 3 T for technical quality, artifacts, and visibility of selected fixed structures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: 21 children who had WBMRI at both 1.5 and 3 T scanners within a relatively short interval (3-13 months; average-8.6 months) were included. The images were objectively compared with scores from 4 to 1 for five parameters including severity of artifacts; visibility of liver, vertebral column, and marrow in legs; and overall image quality. Inter-observer agreement was calculated using Kendall's coefficient of Concordance (W) and scores were compared using Signed Rank test.

RESULTS: There was substantial inter-observer agreement for all five categories at both field strengths. The difference between averages of mean scores of all five parameters for two field strengths was statistically significant (P < 0.05), indicating less artifact, better fixed structure visibility, and overall image quality at 1.5 T as compared to 3 T. However, scores at 3 T were also rated within a good range (around 3) indicating its feasibility for WBMRI in children.

CONCLUSION: WBMRI at 1.5 T has significantly better image quality, fixed structure visibility, and fewer artifacts, as compared to WBMRI at 3 T in children. This difference is unlikely to significantly affect detection of pathology on 3 T WBMRI as the image quality score at 3 T was also within good range.

Keywords: 1.5 T; 3 T; artifacts; children; image quality; whole-body magnetic resonance imaging

References

  1. Clin Radiol. 2014 Sep;69(9):900-8 - PubMed
  2. Pediatr Radiol. 2005 Aug;35(8):766-73 - PubMed
  3. Radiographics. 2004 Sep-Oct;24(5):1317-30 - PubMed
  4. Acta Radiol. 2011 Jun 1;52(5):547-53 - PubMed
  5. Pediatr Radiol. 2004 Jun;34(6):472-80 - PubMed
  6. Radiographics. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1):263-80 - PubMed
  7. Invest Radiol. 2007 Jun;42(6):449-59 - PubMed
  8. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011 May-Jun;35(3):317-25 - PubMed
  9. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Nov;179(5):1261-6 - PubMed
  10. Radiology. 2010 Apr;255(1):182-90 - PubMed
  11. Radiology. 2009 Sep;252(3):842-51 - PubMed
  12. Radiographics. 2009 Sep-Oct;29(5):1451-66 - PubMed
  13. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2004;6(4):877-84 - PubMed
  14. Eur Radiol. 2004 Oct;14 (10 ):1829-41 - PubMed
  15. Invest Radiol. 2003 Jul;38(7):436-42 - PubMed
  16. Eur J Radiol. 2008 Nov;68(2):289-98 - PubMed
  17. Pediatr Radiol. 2008 Sep;38(9):953-62 - PubMed
  18. Radiographics. 2011 Oct;31(6):1757-72 - PubMed
  19. Pediatr Radiol. 2006 Oct;36(10 ):1019-31 - PubMed
  20. Rofo. 2011 Apr;183(4):358-64 - PubMed

Publication Types